Russell v. Watkins & Shepard [07/11/08] 2008 MTWCC 36The Court determined that the credibility and qualifications of a physician whose hospital privileges were not in the area of practice in which he treated the Petitioner, and who was certified by a board of uncertain credence, were less persuasive than the credibility and qualifications of other physicians whose opinions were submitted into evidence.

Hagemann v. Montana Contractor Compensation Fund [07/10/08] 2008 MTWCC 35Respondent objected to the admission of opinion testimony of a physician regarding the cause of Petitioner’s pulmonary condition on the grounds that her opinions lacked foundation. The physician is board-certified in internal medicine, is Petitioner’s treating physician, and qualifies as a treating physician under § 39-71-116(37)(a), MCA. She treats pneumonia and pulmonary embolisms as a regular part of her practice and testified at length regarding her treatment of Petitioner and the basis for her opinions. Respondent’s foundational concerns go to the weight and not the admissibility of the testimony.

Hall
v. State Compensation Insurance Fund [1/13/99] 1999 MTWCC 3
WCC was not persuaded by opinions of physicians treating claimant for
workplace allergic-type reactions where those physicians were not certified
by the American Academy of Allergy and Immunology, which certifies "traditional"
allergists, and utilized non-traditional allergy testing and treatment
practices criticized as non-scientific by IME physician.